The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

So it appears David Hogg, the new "ersatz" star advocating for "gun control" (actually, gun confiscation), and who in part got Governor Scott of Florida to sign a "must be 21 to buy or own a gun" law, has a younger sister named Lauren.

Lauren is 14 at the present time and since she has put herself into the debate it's fair to ask her a few questions - along with David.

So let's start with a question for David, and others like him: Are you going to be your sister's keeper from her 18th birthday until her 21st? All the time, every day, everywhere?

No?

Well then perhaps you should contemplate what you and others intentionally did to her with your lies.

See, she will turn 18 and you will be >21. You will thus be able to buy and own a gun in Florida.

She will not.

May I remind you that the rate of rape (old definition, that is, forcible rape) occurs at a much higher rate than murder? In fact the rate of forcible rape (the really ugly sort, you know, where actual physical force is used) occurs at roughly five times that of murder, and what's much worse is that since women are only about half the population and are under-represented in murder victims which over-represent gang-banger young guys the risk of her being raped is more than ten times that of being murdered, simply because comparatively few men are raped.

Therefore your lovely younger sister is going to spend three years condemned, by you personally, to be unable to defend herself against a violent rapist who is roughly 40 times more likely to attack her than she is to be murdered by anyone during that same period of time.

As a direct result of your actions David your sister Lauren must now face this grossly greater risk of violent sexual assault unable to legally defend herself with the only device ever invented by man that equalizes the odds between an 18 year old young women and a 250+lb 6'2" brute intent on violating her.

I wonder if you asked her if she was ok with this and told her the truth about the relative risks to her person involving both being murdered and violently sexually assaulted before you advocated for such a change? She claims to consider you her "best friend", according to the above interview she participated in. Did your father (ex FBI, and thus he knows damn well I'm right about these facts) honestly tell both of you about those risks and how they compare? If he did tell you did you intentionally ignore him or did he lie, either by omission or commission, as well? I remind you that these are not my statistics, they're the FBI's from the government's annual UCR reports.

Would a "best friend" disarm someone by force of law and as a result of doing so prevent them from being able to stop a potential future violent rape that is 20 to 40-some times more likely to happen to her than her risk of being shot and killed, whether in school or otherwise?

I wonder if the young women, nearly all of whom are not yet 21showing up at these "protests" had explained to them that they were advocating for being defenseless for three more years against a violent sexual offense that is twenty to forty times more likely to be perpetrated against them than they are to be murdered, whether with a gun or otherwise?

I would never wish******on anyone but if it happens I remind you that other statistics claim that college-age women have a roughly 1-in-10 chance of being violently sexually assaulted during those early adult years. It really shouldn't surprise anyone that as a woman's age goes up the risk of being targeted does tend to drop; disarming women during their most-vulnerable years, when they are both youngest and living independently, is outrageous.

David Hogg clearly doesn't care about any of this despite having a younger sister who now has to live with the results of his advocacy and claim to be "changing the world." You see, it's very unlikely he will be raped due to his sex but he just made it more likely that his sister Lauren will be because she will be unable to effectively resist and violent brutes will know that too since they're aware of the change in the law. As such the risk of forcible******for 18-21 year old young women in Florida just went up.

I wonder how your sister feels about that David.... and how you'll feel if she is assaulted at some point during those years. You will take personal responsibility for that if it happens, right? Is she ok with that "change in the world" you forced upon her and did she consent to your advocacy with full knowledge and consideration or did you lie to her and millions of other young women like her?

The Second Amendment says shall not be infringed for many reasons and this is one of them.

Wow man, it's a huge scandal when someone grabs data without explicit permission from users for one purpose, but when Zuckerpig does it all is ok.

The employee, Chris Wylie, told Britain's Channel 4 that Cambridge used the data to build psychological profiles so voters could be targeted with ads and stories. Wylie added that the data was obtained from an app developed by an academic that vacuumed up data from Facebook users who agreed to fill out a survey, as well as their friends and contacts — a process of which most were unaware.

Oh, and who's aware that Facesucker gobbles up data from anywhere their little "like" buttons and "beacons" are found all over the Internet even if you have no account with Facebook or are not signed in?

Indeed how can you consent to something you didn't know was there until after the fact?

You can't.

So what's the problem with Cambridge? Why are politicians suddenly upset with them (and with Facesucker) when they have sat back for years, in fact going back to the founding of Facebook, and done nothing about the company collecting data on people without their knowledge or consent, including most-particularly from users who never could have consented in advance because the data isn't coming from visiting Facebook itself.

"We need to find out what we can about the misappropriation of the privacy, the private information of tens of millions of Americans," Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said.

and

Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., told CNN's "State of the Union" that it was important to find out "who knew what when?"

"This is a big deal, when you have that amount of data," Flake said. "And the privacy violations there are significant. So, the question is, who knew it? When did they know it? How long did this go on? And what happens to that data now?"

Really?

So when are you going to take Zuckerpig back behind the woodshed and.......

Yeah Adam, what's up with that eh? Facebook has their little "like" buttons all over the web and their "single sign-on" is used by even more, from newspapers to blogs to god-knows-what-else.

Anyone who does so inherently gives their activity in that place -- all of it -- to Facebook, whether they use that facility to sign in or "like" something or not because the very act of loading that button code and similar results in the user's browser sending a request to Facebook's machines and they now have, and use, the detailed information on who you are, where you are, and what you're doing without any means of consent or foreknowledge before you visit the site whatsoever.

The firm's entire business model relies on them doing this -- gathering data on wherever and whenever you are online, not just when you're on their site. This sort of activity needs to be absolutely prohibited under criminal penalty because if you don't then a handful of big companies like Facepig inherently are able to "crowd out" everyone else and they will abuse the detailed data they collect on people, including non-subscribers and those who have no way to know in advance they are being tracked, analyzed and their data sold without their prior knowledge or consent since there is utterly no reason for them not to.

Governor Scott and the Florida Legislature -- both Houses -- committed an unspeakable crime against the people of this state. They must all be removed from office, their faux "law" that is unconstitutional must be torn up and they must go to prison.

Some school counselors and officials were so concerned about the mental stability of Nikolas Cruz, accused in last month’s Florida school massacre, that they reportedly decided to have him forcibly committed more than a year before the shooting.

However, the recommendation was never acted upon.

...

The documents showed a high school resource officer who was also a sheriff's deputy and two school counselors recommended in September 2016 that Cruz be committed for mental evaluation under Florida's Baker Act. That law allows for involuntary commitment for mental health examination for at least three days.

That's the same deputy who refused to go in, knowing the shooter was inside shooting.

Had that involuntary commitment occurred and then was confirmed by judicial hearing it would have served as a bar to the legal purchase of firearms (Form 4473, question 11f)

I quote:

A determination by a court, board, commission or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition or disease: (1) is a danger to himself or to others or; (2) lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.......

The "three day hold" must be confirmed by a court during those three days. But once that occurs it is entered into the system and would be picked up by NICS (which the FDLE runs in Florida) had he lied.

You can read the actual law here. It provides for a robust system of due process and also allows for continued retention on an involuntary basis for people who are a danger to themselves or others. One of the specific criteria for same is:

b. There is substantial likelihood that in the near future he or she will inflict serious bodily harm on self or others, as evidenced by recent behavior causing, attempting, or threatening such harm....

A finding under this law is an involuntary commitment and thus a bar to legal firearms purchase.

There is exactly zero justification for more laws which will be ignored whenever it suits the authorities and which are always ignored by criminals. We now know that there was no question that the existing laws and authorities in Florida were sufficient to prevent this shooting from happening.

David Hogg and others pursued their agenda with deliberate intent, backed by the Legislature and Governor, to deprive people of their rights under color of law and authority and they did so by ramming this change in the law down everyone's throat before the facts were able to come to the table proving that no new law was necessary as existing legal authorities were more than sufficient to prevent the shooting from taking place if those in charge of enforcing the law actually did so.

In short there was no law needed nor would it help; this was a pure grab against rights guaranteed by the Constitution and thus stands as an unconstitutional and unlawful act by every single person so-involved.